Posted on 11/24/2019 2:51:38 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/birth-rate-by-country/
(That birth rate would have to collapse before one could ignore that threat; I don’t see that happening.)
25 years ago it was almost 10. Today it's in the mid 4s. It already has collapsed. As the birth rate declines, average age goes up. In 20 years they will be where we are now. That's pretty much the definition of collapse.
We had six, using NFP to space them around health issues for mom. In retrospect we could have had more, but there was the fear that we would not be around to educate them. If we had trusted more, maybe God would have revealed more to us on how to correct the serious health problems?
It will be my children and grand children who will take care of the couples who had 0,1, or 2 children. Otherwise they will die alone.
In my line of work I know many many couples who had only two children, only to lose one or both of them to autism or on the battlefield. When you don’t have a full quiver, any casualty is like the last plague of Egypt, losing your first born son or daughter.
I think we accept that birth rates around the world are in decline. I don’t believe, however, that the Muslim birth rates worldwide (in Afghanistan or anywhere else) are declining faster than Western birth rates, which they would have to do for Westerners not to be concerned about disparate birth rates.
(When Viktor Orban of Hungary specifically refers to the Muslim birth rate as s threat to Hungary, is his math wrong?)
+1
Long term, yes. You can put Hungary in the Japan category. A low birthrate country that won't allow immigration. In 100 year neither country will exist.
“When families, faiths, ethnic groups and nations stop believing, they stop reproducing.” - David P. Goldman.
If Orban wasn’t providing incentives for Hungarians to have more children, then he would be setting his country up for a fall.
But that he IS providing incentives for people to have more children tells me that he takes the matter seriously.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-orban-benefits/orban-offers-financial-incentives-to-boost-hungarys-birth-rate-idUSKCN1PZ0I0
It seems to be working: https://dailynewshungary.com/number-of-marriages-fertility-rate-up-in-hungary/
My error, 25 years ago Afghanistan was push 8, not 10.
I do wish them luck.
Europe is turning Muslim because their idiot leaders decided to open their borders to the Muslims. Japan has an even lower birth rate than many European countries and I don’t see them welcoming rape-fugees to their shores.
Maybe Asians really are smarter than whites.
Sure. Your comment would make sense on the face of it, *IF* certain historic facts or assumptions had turned out differently, namely if the leadership of the Church had actually been preaching and teaching against contraception over the past 50 years, and if Catholic husbands and wives had been behaving morally in accordance with the teaching, engaging in natural sex and procreating at a natural rate.
However, it was all to the contrary.
First of all, objective sexual morality was not preached at the parish level. I've gone to 5,000 -7,000 Masses in my life and have never heard one complete sentence with contraception or Humanae Vitae as the subject. (Similarly, Nancy Pelosi says she, her husband and 5 adult kids collectively spent over 100 years in Catholic schools and never once heard that man-on-man or women-on-woman sex was a sin.)
So, at the parish level, and I'm told at the seminary level, the Catholic Church did not have any teachings on sex, fertility, sanctity or sin. I say that ironically, and provocatively of course: if you don't *teach* it, it isn't a teaching. So 2-3 generation of Catholics have gone into adulthood knowing no more than what they learned from TV and PP.
And, like our fellow Protestants, secular Jews, and our fellow faithless citizens, we are dying out as a demographic from (ha) forgetting to reproduce.
Respectfully disagree — a married couple where the man uses a condom is not a, “sin”. But I come from a Protestant tradition.
Who made up the “mortal sin” thing? Sins are sins. The Bible does not differentiate.
The only “mortal” sin would be to deny Christ and His gift of eternal life.
It was apparently the Apostle John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who made up the 'mortal sin thing'.
The concept of two kids of sin, one "not unto death" (called venial) and one "unto death" (mortal) is from Scripture. Note that mortal means, literally, "unto death" as in a mortal injury, a mortal illness, etc., one which is lethal: it leads to demise. You can see exactly that difference here:
1 John 5:16-17"The only 'mortal' sin would be to deny Christ and His gift of eternal life.
"If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he should ask God, who will give life to those who commit this kind of sin. There is a sin that does lead to death; I am not saying he should ask regarding that sin. All unrighteousness is sin, yet there is sin that does not lead to death."
You're are making a very good point there. Mayflower Madam.
One eternal or unforgivable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) is specified in several Gospel passages including Mark 3:28–29, Matthew 12:31–32, and Luke 12:10.
There are several sins that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
In a way, that all adds up top the same lamentable end, as you said: denying Christ and His gift of eternal life.
To have sex for any reason outside of procreation is to do “injury to nature”?
How absurd. Even St. Paul himself said the marriage bed is undefiled, and it is better to marry than to burn.
I just don’t get this obsession against contraception.
Sex outside of marriage is wrong? Totally agree; porn is wrong, absolutely agree. I’m totally conservative all those stances, except birth control. I just don’t relate and I don’t see it as a sin.
If it’s an abortifacient, like the pill, yeah, that’s wrong, it’s destroying a fetus.
Ed
You can extend your argument to say that ceasing to have sex (as Paul says to do at times) is disobedience, and sterility, because you’re removing any chance of having a baby.
No. There are legitimate reasons why a married couple may decide to not have sex. That is not the same thing as having sex and using artificial means to prevent conception. Even the use of natural (as in NFP) means must be for “serious and “grave reasons.” What those might be I suppose would vary according to the couple’s circumstances.
You’re not contending with me but what was a basic given of Christian teaching regardless of denomination up until the mid 20th Century, most notably in 1930 when the Church of England agreed to recognize the acceptability of artificial contraception’s the landmark Lambeth Conference held that year. Poet/writer T.S. Eliot wrote a famous commentary following the conference that has proven somewhat prophetic.
Even non-Christian thinkers like Gandhi (who was nevertheless educated in the UK) wrote at length on the social and moral dangers of birth control and what one could call a ‘contraceptive mentality.’
Your shortsightedness in failing to see how inextricably linked and foundational contraception is to laying the very groundwork for the social ills you speak of (porn, abortion) is glaring. And the fact you’re not alone in your shortsightedness is why the impact on modern society has been so devastating. And the Christian witness so inviolable compromised.
Good day.
(Is the theft of one’s life savings morally equivalent to the theft of his cigarette lighter?)
Do the courts treat these offenses as the same?
Of course not. So why would God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.